The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://texaschlforum.com/
Your original post made a conclusion and used only the Elk case and a single quote from the original debates to support your conclusion. In fact, you made the assertion that you were unaware of any other case on the matter. My reply provided not just a rebuttal to Elk, but pointed to a series of cases including the seminal case Wong Kim Ark which is recognized as the controlling case by all authorities. I agreed that one might argue that case differently for a different result to be put to SCOTUS, but you have yet to address this case and explain how it does not apply. In addition, you cherry picked a quote from the original debates without reading the arguments by the original drafters in context, even after the original copies of the debates were provided. Further, you failed to even examine Wong Kim Ark and it's treatment of the original debates, common law, or the how SCOTUS in that case interpreted the salughterhouse cases of which Elk is just one. I can only surmise that you consider reading the original texts and competing case law is not worthy of your time. Such an attitude is indicative of the confirmation bias in your argument and common among armchair lawyers who don't want to do the hard work of digging thru the data to organize their argument in a manner even a high school debate team would find acceptable. Last, you never addressed the underlying question from the original post, which is not can birthright citizenship be overturned, but how one might do so with a presidential directive. That's ok, I'll leave you to your armchair hermeneutics and move on to arguing real cases.TXHawk wrote: ↑Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:39 pmI will allow you the last word after this as we clearly are at impasse and I am not going to make an honest attempt at a discussing an issues with your dedication to the the ad homenim. I will just say this. I have clearly presented the legal precedence which you and your side of the aisle who prefer a broader definition do not accept. Fortunately that is precisely what the SCOTUS is for is to settle questions such as this. My guess is they will do exactly that in regard to the 14th, pending 2nd issues, and many more. I will go ahead and address what is sure to be a diatribe about court stacking with this. Elections matter. Blue lost in 2016.
Be blessed.
srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:37 pmphilbo wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:30 amBut wait, there's more. Now tRump is wanting more troops to the border (where they are legally prohibited from engaging in police activites) and suggesting they have the authority to shoot anyone throwing rocks at them.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 5ad5878e58
I'm not sure what falsehood you are saying was made. I'm perfectly aware of The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and how it restricts the U.S. military from acting as law enforcement on U.S. soil. without approval from congress. In the present case this means troops will not be authorized to "detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping" the migrant caravan, the Military Times reports. Instead, troops will "largely mirror that of the existing National Guard" already at the border. Maybe congress passed new authorizations recently, but I am unaware they were in session...?srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:37 pm I strongly suggest that you do better research on your points. When you repeat false claims it really hurts your credibility in all other arguments. The military is not prohibited from all police activities in the US. The law prohibiting this is called the Posse Comitatus Act and it is in the US code in Title 18, section 1385. The wording of the law forbids the military from being used as a posse except for where authorized by the Congress (among other exceptions).
As far as being authorized to use deadly force to protect against rock throwing? Even if the caravan arrives at some point in the future (pretty evident they won't be here by tomorrow), pretty clear the military will not be authorized to do so, or if they would follow such an illegal order. Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling, retired U.S. Army officer recently tweeted: "[T]here is no leader in the military - Officer or NCO - who would allow a soldier to shoot at an individual throwing a rock. They know that violates the rules of engagement, the law of land warfare & the values those in the military believe. It would be an unlawful order." Maybe you believe differently?srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Nov 02, 2018 9:37 pm One of the known exceptions, for example, is that the military can be used to help enforce drug laws. This was how the military was used in several recent encounters against US citizens, with the most notable in our area being in Waco against the Branch Davidians (the ATF told the AG and our Governor that they suspected them of having drugs). Another one, used and favored by the Democratic Party, is that the President may order the military out to enforce federal law. The example of this being favors by the Democrats is when the 101st Airborne Division was ordered out to enforce desegregation in Little Rock, Ark in 1957.
I could be wrong, but I understand after some very brief research that the deployment of military troops to the border to enforce federal law is within the legal authority of the president. If you want to argue against it, you might use the example of what happened when Marines were assigned to patrol the border. That resulted in them shooting Esequiel Hernandez, Jr., a US citizen on his own property. You might not want to use it as an example though, because that was in 1997 when a Democratic President (Bill Clinton) assigned active duty troops to patrol our southern border to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in while carrying drugs. Kind of cuts against your argument of it being illegal to use troops to enforce the law.
While you may be fooling yourself, what you exhibit on this thread is anything but critical thinking. It is better described as CNN inspired NPC think.
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the Coast Guard routinely seize drugs from smugglers? The Coast Guard is a military force isn't it?
Although it is an armed service, the U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, is not restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act but has explicit authority to enforce federal law. This is true even when the Coast Guard is operating as a service within the U.S. Navy during wartime.
So perhaps Trump needs to put the Coast Guard on our southern border.G26ster wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:29 pmAlthough it is an armed service, the U.S. Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, is not restricted by the Posse Comitatus Act but has explicit authority to enforce federal law. This is true even when the Coast Guard is operating as a service within the U.S. Navy during wartime.
Thank you for proving my point with an emotional outburst, devoid of evidence, that jumps straight to name calling. tRump couldn't have done it better himself. Give yourself a nice big pat on the back!03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:59 pmWhile you may be fooling yourself, what you exhibit on this thread is anything but critical thinking. It is better described as CNN inspired NPC think.
The fact that you call a simple observation an emotional outburst proves my point.philbo wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 10:57 amThank you for proving my point with an emotional outburst, devoid of evidence, that jumps straight to name calling. tRump couldn't have done it better himself. Give yourself a nice big pat on the back!03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 05, 2018 5:59 pmWhile you may be fooling yourself, what you exhibit on this thread is anything but critical thinking. It is better described as CNN inspired NPC think.
Perhaps TXHawk will show up and begin yet another post by misspelling ad hominem one more time.
"Some ideas are so stupid that only intellectuals believe them.”dale blanker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:35 pm [But remember, memes are the main expression of intellectually handicapped...